Supreme Court sets aside order summoning woman as additional accused.

The Supreme Court has held that a trial court cannot summon a person as an additional accused by relying only on a witness's initial statement if the witness later contradicts that statement during cross-examination. The court must consider both parts of the testimony before deciding whether to summon the person under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) [Section 358 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)], Court clarified.

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and N Kotiswar Singh said that once a witness has been cross-examined, the trial court must consider his deposition as a whole, including the cross-examination, while deciding whether there is sufficient material to summon an additional accused.

Court made the observation while setting aside orders of the trial court and the Allahabad High Court summoning Neelam Yadav as an additional accused in a murder case. It found that both courts had relied on a witness's statement-in-chief without considering his cross-examination, which contradicted his earlier version.

"We are conscious of the law that the expression evidence as used in Section 319 CrPC is not confined to the statement of a witness tested by cross-examination. The power under Section 319 CrPC can very well be exercised based on a statement-in-chief of a witness, without awaiting his cross-examination. However, where the witness has been cross-examined, the trial court cannot shut its eye to the entire statement," the Bench said.

Court was hearing an appeal filed by Yadav against the Allahabad High Court's February 16, 2026 order dismissing her criminal revision against the trial court's order summoning her under Section 319 CrPC to face trial along with the other accused.

The case arose from an FIR lodged on July 25, 2022, at Jakhaura police station in Lalitpur district under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) [Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)], naming Raman Singh and Yadav as accused.

According to the FIR, on July 23, 2022, Raman Singh, the informant's brother, and Yadav went to the informant's house and demanded a share in the property of Bhagwan Singh, the informant's father and Raman Singh's father.

When Bhagwan Singh refused to execute the transfer instrument, Yadav allegedly held his hand while Raman Singh stabbed him with a knife. Both then allegedly fled the spot. The informant said he could not report the matter earlier as he was involved in his father's cremation.

After investigation, the chargesheet was filed only against Raman Singh.

During the trial, an application was moved under Section 319 CrPC seeking to summon Yadav as an additional accused. The trial court allowed the application and summoned her to face trial along with Raman Singh. Yadav challenged the order before the high court, but her revision was dismissed.

Before the Supreme Court, Yadav's counsel argued that the trial court had mechanically exercised its power under Section 319 CrPC without considering the witnesses' depositions in their entirety. Had the cross-examination been considered, counsel submitted, the court may not have found it appropriate to summon her.

The respondents argued that at the stage of exercising power under Section 319 CrPC, the court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or determine whether the evidence would ultimately result in a conviction. Court only has to be satisfied that, based on the evidence on record, the additional accused should be tried along with the person already facing trial, they said.

They submitted that the statement-in-chief of PW-1 implicated both Raman Singh and Yadav and, therefore, the summoning order could not be faulted.

The Supreme Court said the purpose of Section 319 CrPC is, among other things, to ensure that a person involved in an offence does not escape the law because of lapses by the investigating agency. However, the power must be exercised sparingly and on the basis of evidence led during the trial.

Court said such evidence cannot be treated as confined to the statement-in-chief when the witness has subsequently been cross-examined.

At the same time, the trial court is not required to weigh the witness's testimony like it would at the stage of deciding the guilt of the accused or conduct a mini-trial, the Bench clarified.

"However, if the statement of a witness during cross-examination demolishes the edifice of his statement in chief, the trial court cannot overlook the statement in its entirety, when the decision to arraign additional accused rests entirely on his statement," the Bench said.

Court added that after considering the deposition in its entirety, it would still be for the trial court to decide whether the additional accused should be summoned to face trial.

The Supreme Court found that neither the trial court nor the high court had considered the deposition of the witnesses, particularly PW-1, in its entirety and had overlooked the statement made by PW-1 during cross-examination.

It therefore set aside the orders of both courts.

The Bench, however, clarified that the trial court would be at liberty to reconsider the request to summon Yadav as an additional accused in accordance with law. It also made clear that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

Case Title: Neelam Yadav Vs State of UP & Anr

Bench: Justices Manoj Misra and N Kotiswar Singh 

Date of Judgment: October 15, 2026

Tags: